scan_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint (external access) and non-destructive. Description adds that it writes HTML reports to output_dir, which is a behavioral side effect. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Efficient, but could be slightly tighter. Length is justified by the added context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, results (JSON+HTML), and alternatives. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Missing parameter descriptions are a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only explains output_dir (reports written there). Other parameters like run_profile and max_findings are not described, so partial compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool scans project dependencies for CVEs and ranks by EPSS/KEV risk. It distinguishes from sibling scan_full by noting scope difference (npm/PyPI vs OS packages). Specific verb 'scan' and resource 'project dependencies' are present.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit best-for: wanting to fix CVEs first, supply-chain risk, pairing with validate_after_patch. Also recommends scan_full for broader coverage. Provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.